Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I am continuing my remarks on—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in continuation and also in your correct seat, which pleases me.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here to please, Mr Deputy President. That is a goal I have set myself. But what does not please me is the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2015. As I was saying in my remarks yesterday evening, I worry that the sheer damage and danger being proposed by this legislation has perhaps in part failed to be recognised, given the way in which the government has fairly cleverly used and clouded the language around some of these matters.

It is important to reiterate the framework of what is being proposed. At the last election a series of commitments were given by this government. The commitments that were given were that these amendments would not go any further than the government's pre-election promises and that it would implement specific recommendations directly from the 2012 Fair Work review. The government on both those counts has broken its promise. This bill goes further than its pre-election promises in a number of places. Three in particular need to be explored: firstly, individual flexibility arrangements; secondly, greenfields agreements; and finally, the issues relating to rights of entry. More broadly than that, the bill as a whole demonstrates an ideological agenda that has been run by this government against trade unionism, against workers and against the right of workers to collectively bargain.

Individual flexibility arrangements, IFAs, were introduced by Labor in 2009. Labor introduced IFAs because we believe that flexible work practices can deliver benefits to both employees and employers if—and this is the big if—they are applied appropriately. At the same time Labor wanted to protect the vulnerable low-paid workers and families who could least afford cuts to the bottom line of their budget, by ensuring that sufficient safeguards were in the legislation. But—and this is what is so worrying about the aims of this legislation—IFAs should not be imposed on unsuspecting employees as a means of taking away their conditions and taking away their penalty rates.

We have all heard examples where an employee swaps a relatively insignificant monetary benefit for a non-financial benefit. In those cases it can be a win for employers and employees. But the point in relation to this legislation is that the relevant expert panel recommendation states that if a non-monetary benefit is being traded for a monetary benefit, the value of the monetary benefit forgone must be relatively insignificant and the value of the non-monetary benefit must be proportionate. We do not want to see a situation where IFAs are being used to exploit and rip people off. Despite the clear prescription of relative insignificance and proportion, those two words are missing from the government's bill.

I want to draw the Senate's attention to the work that has been done by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee and their fantastic report on the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, which gives a fairly detailed analysis. We are not going to have the opportunity here to go through it in detail but it gives a detailed analysis of what is so worrying about these IFA arrangements and why they go so much further than was ever the initial intention of the legislation.

The provisions on greenfields agreements are also concerning. The government's proposed amendments to greenfields agreements pave the way for employers to essentially negotiate with themselves. The opposition opposes these amendments because the bargaining process will not be improved by simply removing one party, trade unions, from the negotiating table. These amendments give employers the absolute advantage in negotiating. I will quickly run through some of the powers that this bill will give them. Employers will gain absolute control over which unions they themselves are able to negotiate with, taking that power away from the workers. After an employer agrees to bargain with an employee organisation, the employer at any time can issue notice to commence a three-month notified negotiation period. The countdown clock does not stop once it starts. An employer could essentially walk away from the negotiating table and simply wait for those three months to expire. Finally, at the end of the three months, the employer and only the employer could take a proposed agreement to the Fair Work Commission for assessment and approval. The concern here is that these agreements, these relationships, on greenfields sites are most effective when it is a two-way street, not simply an employer-driven dead end.

The other big concern here relates to the issue of rights of entry. Labor expect anyone afforded the right to enter a workplace to act properly at all times. Let's be clear: within the act, within the current provisions, there are strict rules about what is and is not appropriate behaviour for a person entering a worksite. But let's also remember that all Australian workers also deserve rights to access independent advice and advocacy at their workplace. So it is important that right of entry provisions are sensible but not weighted too heavily in favour of either group—unions or employers.

The government's proposed changes to the right of entry provisions heavily favour one group, and that is employers. The coalition said they would adopt recommendation 35 of the expert panel, which provides Fair Work Australia with greater power to resolve disputes about the frequency of visits. The government's inclusion of a provision that requires Fair Work Commission to consider 'the combined impact on the employer's operations' is clearly intended to exclude all unions from a site if only one union has been found to have entered too frequently. For the government, it is a case of 'punish one, punish all'. That really goes to the heart of some of the problems with this legislation—this entire idea that you should class everyone together and use an occasional exemption that is already very well covered by provisions in other acts to simply prevent the right of workers to have access to the representation.

The government is suggesting that, if an employee would like his or her union to come to their workplace and they wish to remain anonymous, the union must apply to the Fair Work Commission to obtain an invitation certificate. Does the coalition honestly believe that in a small business with, say, 15 or fewer employees the boss will not be able to find out who sought the union's presence at that workplace? Another of the government's claims is that employers have to pay for the cost of union boss 'joy riders' to remote worksites. What the coalition does not tell anyone is that employers are required to facilitate access only where premises are not reasonably accessible by transport other than by the employer or that the nature of the premises means the union is required to stay overnight. This is an exception, not a common rule.

As a whole, this bill goes too far. It introduces measures that go against what the government itself had promised before the election and it fundamentally represents what has been a continuation of nothing more than an ideologically driven attack on the rights of workers to organise and work together. I urge the Senate to vote down this bill.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is another reminder of what a seamless change it is from the Abbott government to the Turnbull government. What this bill will attempt to do is deeply alarming—the degree to which it will drive down working conditions in this country. The ability to collectively organise and union rights are central to this legislation. This is a real reminder of why it should not go through. It will increase inequality in this country. Fairness will become a distant memory. I think it is very important that the Senate rejects this piece of legislation.

I understand that some crossbench senators are in talks with the Liberal-National government to get this legislation through. I think it is very important that we look thoroughly at this legislation because it would be an enormous setback. Even if the legislation passes not in full but in some modified form, that is not progress, that is not the solution here. The bill needs to be defeated in its entirety. There cannot be a compromise here. It is bad legislation. I would urge those crossbench senators to consider how they have often stopped similar legislation going through in the past. They have been a voice for working people—for the conditions of workers on the job and for the rights of unions. We must continue to work together to ensure that that continues.

One of the main concerns in this bill is what it seeks to do to greenfields agreements. I think we need to look very closely at it. I find it deeply alarming when I look at it because I understand and know how important the current arrangements have been to ensuring that workers going into new sites are able to start with decent conditions. And those conditions have worked for industry and business as well; they have given them certainty. The argument that it gives unions control and that businesses do not know what they do and they cannot get their projects off the ground is rubbish. It is just not the case. It is another means to try and increase the profits of companies by driving down working conditions—a very troubling aspect and a reminder why we need to pay close attention to this and ensure that it does not pass.

When we are talking about greenfield sites, we are largely talking about new mine sites, ports, LNG processing and also some large-scale construction. At the moment, there needs to be an agreement between the prospective employer and the unions—often there is more than one union representing the workers—to cover that site. I would like to share with you a very fine example of how the current system has worked so well. I imagine that many of you would imagine the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. It was a great success, it was hailed as the world's best Olympics and there was great credit given to how those Olympics were run. The starting point in any sporting endeavour is that you need the various venues. Who built the venues? Tens of thousands of workers. Why was it on time? Why was it world class? Why were there minimal health and safety conditions? It was firstly because of how the union, the state government and the companies involved worked together. It was effectively a greenfields agreement that allowed that project to be on time. There were venues all over the place and all sorts of huge projects being built. Yes, there were some accidents but they were minimal and it was delivered on time. Bob Carr—a former senator, a former foreign minister and a former premier of New South Wales—would regularly boast about the success of the Sydney Olympic Games. Why were they successful? Because the negotiations were done with the union, there were good working conditions and industrial issues were kept to a minimum because of all those agreements.

Here we have this Liberal-National government, now under the leadership of Prime Minister Turnbull, turning the clock back on working conditions and the ability of unions to organise. Let's remember that the conditions of the operation of current greenfields sites are something that have been won by struggle. Once upon a time these conditions were not there. Why were they put in place? It was to give some decent working conditions to protect workers in terms of health and safety conditions. That is what was established, and that is what would be removed.

Some of the arguments that have been put are that greenfields bargaining practices mean that the commencement of projects can be delayed or possibly abandoned. There are minimal examples of that, and often they are set-up examples where the company wants to be able to complain so that down the track that company and other companies can get a better deal. Again, why would you wind the clock back? These companies still make extensive profits. All the current greenfield site arrangements set out is for there to be an agreement, but if it is changed we have the extraordinary situation where a company could negotiate with itself. Seriously—that is how it would operate. That really does go too far—to water down working conditions to such an extent.

How that would work—if the changes were to be brought in—would be that a company could refuse to engage in discussions with the relevant union or unions about an enterprise agreement. It would just have to tough it out for three months. I understand that there could be an amendment to make that six months. Really, that time difference makes no difference. If they last out that time, then they can make the agreement. They are, effectively, negotiating with themselves, because then they are off to the Fair Work Commission—that is the next stage.

This legislation would take away the only thing that employees have the right to do in this situation, and that is their right to take industrial action. Remember, that is why unions came into being. At the end of the day, the only power that workers have if they have an employer or boss that is ruthless with regard to working conditions—where they deem that they have to take action—is to withdraw their labour. That is what we are talking about here, and that is what would be denied. What is put in place? These are very ugly laws resulting in fines and possibly jail both for the workers and the union officials who are trying to give them support. At every turn, this is legislation that the alarm bells should ring on. It needs to be looked at closely and, again, I want to emphasise that this is not legislation that we can just amend and improve on. There is a clear intent here, which is to remove unions from having a role in establishing what the working conditions should be on a large-scale construction project, a port or a mine—clearly, where a negotiation should be worked out so it is there for all involved. That is where the certainty can come from, but that is what would be denied here.

The Greens think that workers are entitled to a share in the resources boom which comes from many of these projects, and that is why the current arrangements should be allowed to continue. But this is legislation that is really about letting employers and companies earn exorbitant profits from these projects. We have not heard reports of projects not getting off the ground. I wanted to emphasise this point again, because that is being used as a justification for why this needs to change. But the case has not been established. Where there have been difficulties in negotiating under the current legislation has not been put out there. We need to remember that this is not an attempt to get more projects up. It is an attempt to get employers an even greater share of the profits coming from agreements by, effectively, shutting the door on negotiations. What does that mean? It means you shut out the unions, and you shut out the workers from negotiating their wages and conditions. This is coming from the Liberals and Nationals—parties that tell us constantly about the rights of the individual; the right to get out there and have your say. Here they are shutting the door—if this legislation goes through—and denying people the right to come together collectively, to have their say and to work for fair wages and conditions. This is very, very extreme legislation that would set Australia back enormously.

Where this legislation comes from—and sometimes I have heard this used as an excuse—is the review of the Fair Work Commission. This takes us back to 2012. There were a number of recommendations in that Fair Work Commission review, but what we see coming from this government is that they have picked the eyes out of those aspects that suit one section of Australian society. It is their constituency; the constituency of the former Abbott government and now the Turnbull government—the corporate world and corporate Australia. Again, this is a very divisive way to run politics and policy in this country. There were some good aspects to that review, but there were some very problematic aspects, as we are seeing with the greenfields arrangements. My colleague in the House of Representatives, the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, has done extensive work on this and I would recommend that members in this place should acquaint themselves with his work, because he gives a very balanced assessment of what that review came down with. We need to ensure that we have very fair industrial relations laws, not the biased ones that we have before us today.

The Greens are concerned about a number of the proposals in this review. There is a weakening of the 'better off overall test' limiting the bargaining on greenfield sites, as I said, and the possible removal of holiday penalty rates in some states and territories. We welcome some aspects. There was a recommendation on extending the right to request flexible arrangements. That should be backed up with an enforceable right. I want to inject that into our considerations today because this is where the legislation has come from: the review. The review is problematic in aspects, but it certainly should not be used as justification to the crossbenchers, or in any way at all, for what we are seeing being pushed through here today. The changes to the greenfield site are effectively about changing the minimum standard with regard to signing off on conditions for new large-scale projects. I find that often a favourite word of the coalition government is 'flexibility'—that we need flexibility for employers so they can get these projects going; that it will be good for the economy and it would be good for jobs. I am sure we will hear that speech again. We have heard it many times before. But this does not give flexibility. It is actually the opposite. It is rigid and it is, in fact, classic neoliberal dogma, where your lock out unions and you lock out the ability of working people to be organised. At the end of the day, there is one group deciding how the project will operate, down to the very details of wages and conditions, and that is the employers.

I want to go over this point again because it is very telling about how wrong this legislation is. When you hear the word 'agreement', you would think that there would be at least two parties involved, but what do we have here? Again, it is really important to emphasise this: an employer is now going to be able to agree with themselves about the legislation and the minimum conditions that will apply in their workplace. How wrong is that? That is so deeply unfair. There are bad employers out there. They are not all bad employers. All employers have to make a profit, so they are looking for a good deal for themselves, but there are some who are really unfair. How many times have we seen that lately in Australia, with rorts going on, the 7-Eleven stores and a number of exposes around—

Senator Canavan interjecting—

I am happy to take the interjection. It is very clear where the Nationals line up. On this bill they certainly are not a voice for rural workers. They have totally forgotten about that constituency. They try to make out that they are friends of rural communities, but the way they try to walk both sides of the road—

Senator Canavan interjecting—

I am happy to acknowledge your interjections, Senator. They walk both sides of the road, but it is being exposed more and more and those interjections show them up even more. It is very important that we understand how this will work. As I said before, if an employer just toughs it out for three months—it does not matter how many months; even if an amendment comes through in about six months—that is so meaningless in making this legislation fair. That is not possible. I was making the point about how many employers, sadly, have been exposed in recent times of being very discriminatory against their workforce. When I was in the New South Wales parliament, I did a lot with the Textile Workers Union. I went to the homes of people—mainly women from non-English-speaking backgrounds—who were often working in their own backyard. There were effectively sweatshop conditions for such minimal pay and the big fashion houses were taking advantage of them. We see examples in many areas; it is not just in greenfield areas. I give the example of piece workers as a reminder of how important unions are. Workers have a right to be represented by a union. They have a right to come together with their fellow workers and speak up and negotiate for better conditions. That is something so fundamental to a fair and democratic society, but we are seeing that effectively denied. That is the intent of the various pieces of legislation that the government wishes to bring forward.

I must admit that when I saw this on the agenda today and following some of the conversations this week since we had a change of leadership with the new Prime Minister, it brought to my mind some of the Sydney Morning Herald cartoons that we have seen over the years of Mr Turnbull. The 'toffee person in the top hat' is how one person described it to me this week. Why does it remind me of that? Because this bill benefits those with money, those with wealth and those with privilege. This is a very serious move that must be put to bed with a clear no vote. I urge the crossbenchers who have brought a very principled voice, a very strong voice, into the Senate for working people and for unions to continue the work that they have done. There cannot be amendments that improve this bill; there cannot be a compromise. This is very dangerous legislation that needs to be exposed and it needs to be voted against. Let's remember that, when we are talking about greenfield sites, we are talking about very large scale projects. There will continue to be more of these projects across Australia, even though the resources boom may be on the wane. There will still be many such projects in the resources area and the construction area, and those workers have rights. That is why the Greens are taking such a very clear stand here. This is about a fair system for all: for workers, for unions—who have a right to represent those workers—for industry and for business. That is the way to give certainty, not the scam that the Turnbull government is now running.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too look forward to making my contribution to the Fair Work Amendment (Penalty Rates Exemption for Small Businesses) Bill 2015. I must commend Senator Rhiannon's contribution because it was very well put. The sad part is that this bill is a real crock, unfortunately. It just shows that side of the parliament's absolute hatred. People have to understand that there is an absolute hatred on that side of the chamber to organised labour. It is as simple as that. They cannot stand the thought of organised labour. The free marketeers over there would love to rip, tear and do whatever they want to do. They think: 'Occupational health and safety—we will worry about that if we get caught.' As long their conditions are not touched, as long as their earnings are not touched and as long as their mates who contribute to them are doing all right, then that is okay.

Madam Acting Deputy President Lines, I feel proud to be in the chamber today with your good self, Senator Cameron and Senator Bilyk. We have all actually come through the ranks. We actually know the meaning of a hard day's work and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. If I may say this—I cannot think of another saying—we have all come through with 'dirt under our fingernails'. The four of us who are here at the moment, and most of us on this side of the chamber, did not snivel our way through university and fall into a senator's office or a minister's office at the tender age of 21 or 22 and think: 'I want to be a senator.' We have actually earned our stripes. We have actually worked hard.

We know what it is like to have a man or a woman in our office. I am the old truckie here in the room. Truck drivers are predominantly male. There is nothing worse than having a man who stands six-odd feet, who is covered in tattoos and could eat nails at a party, break down in tears when he loses his job. He is sitting in your office on a Friday afternoon, after he has been touched on the shoulder and told: 'See you mate. You may be 55 or 60 but we've got no room for you anymore.'

Most of that side over there, those who are born with a silver spoon in their gob, do not really get it. They do not see the point here. They want to talk shares. They like to go to a footy match and sit in the boxes with their corporate mates who donate. They do not see the horrible end. They do not see someone who has been backed over by a forklift at four or five o'clock in the morning or your experience, Madam Acting Deputy President Lines, representing some of the lowest paid workers. This is another ideological blue from that side over there.

As other speakers have touched on, the bill should be just chucked in the bin, quite frankly. It is a good week to do it because most of the stupid promises made to mates in business were made by the previous Prime Minister and he is not a worry anymore. But, do not worry, there are plenty of spear chuckers who will fill his shoes to run the lines: 'We have to get out there and break down organised labour. At every opportunity we must demean the unions.'

Here is a classic example—and I am not using a prop; I just want to use the paper. I am quite proud to say that I never read The Daily Telegraph; however, today I have because something was brought to my attention. This is typical of this rag owned by Murdoch. He is their mate; he is a supporter of those opposite. If anyone wants to be the Prime Minister they have to get on the right side of Murdoch. If they make sure they are on his side then they will get the tick and be off and racing and the paper will run all the stuff. It is not happening with Mr Turnbull at the moment because Mr Murdoch is still in love with the previous Prime Minister, who has gone missing.

The paper attacks the CFMEU. I put out there that the CFMEU are my mates, make no mistake about that. Last week I was proudly with Dave Noonan, Michael O'Connor and another 100 CFMEU delegates at their national conference. It was a great honour. I was with real people. I have tell you that I was so much happier sitting in that room talking to good people than I am looking at that mob on that side of the chamber, like I do during my normal working days, four days a week.

The CFMEU, other unions, I and others in this building are very concerned about the ChAFTA. I know that it is not part of this bill, but it all fills into where this lot over there want to go. For those who do not know, two weeks ago it was called the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and last week it fell into the Chinese—do not worry about import—export agreement. I do not know what shape it has taken this week. The CFMEU have made very clear to us the dangers of following that mob blindly with the current China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the nasties that are in it.

Obviously, they are fans of the assistant minister for immigration, Senator Cash, because she has made a comment here in the paper. I would say he is a young reporter. His name is Daniel Meers. If you are listening, Danny, come and see me if you are up here—I am in room 6.1.39—or give me a buzz. He has been given the job by the boss of the paper to attack the CFMEU. The heading is 'CFMEU’s anti-China campaign hypocrisy'. I will tell you what it is all about. They have a picture of a CFMEU cap that has been made in China. Daniel Meers has said:

THE CFMEU’S campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement has been exposed as hypocritical with revelations merchandise sold by the militant union is made in China.

Well golly! Then it goes on to say:

The Daily Telegraph can reveal multiple items of supporter merchandise branded with CFMEU logos, which were worn during street protests against the Chinese deal, have been made in that country.

Well whoopee! Fantastic! Daniel Meers—sorry, mate, you are not heading for a gong, but I will give you a gong. I will help you out.

I have said this a lot of times, but I have to remind that lot over there. For the last 10 years I have sat on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. For eight years I have chaired it, either the legislation committee when we were in government or the references committee when we are in opposition. One of the biggest inquiries we had was with full-blown anger that was driven by that side. It was not you, Senator Canavan, because you were not here then, but you were in Senator Joyce's office so I reckon you did the wording. We had to have an inquiry into the bogeys coming down from China and buying up all our farmland.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I recognise we range widely here but we have had three or four minutes now of things not even relevant—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point. Please resume your seat.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very relevant and I have not got to the greenfields clause yet. I will build it all up so the good folk of Australia can actually understand what is going on here. I wish I had a couple of hours to do this. I chaired this committee where we had to make sure that the Foreign Investment Review Board were not blindly shutting their eyes and letting the Chinese come and buy all our farms. Certainly, if the Chinese government was buying up farming land, then I would have had concerns, but this was a real 'we've got to kill off anything foreign'. What really piqued us was when ADM wanted to buy GrainCorp. For all those out there who do not know, ADM is not Chinese; it is American. We have to protect our farmers—absolutely no problem—and our rural communities, the whole lot. But to use Daniel Meers' argument here in the Daily Telegraph about how the CFMEU's caps are made in China is ridiculous.

All through the committee hearings on the ownership of farming land—make sure it is not the Chinese taking over!—I never once thought that I would condemn any farmer, farmworker or farming family, or any food producing family or community if they happened to be driving a car made in China. Why would I do that? I never, ever went down that path. While that side opposite were going feral about the Chinese buying land, I was not thinking, 'I'd better get out there on every farm and make sure there are no tools made in China,' or no farming equipment made in China or any farming machinery made in China. At the same time I was listening to all that nonsense from those opposite, going on about the Chinese, I never thought, when a witness from the farming communities or from state farming organisations or whoever was putting up the big defence that we must stop the Chinese buying our land, 'Should I go out there and ask the farming communities and families where their fridges were made,' or their freezers or their TVs? Never, not once—it has nothing to do with it. We all enjoy products made in China, because they are cheaper. Unfortunately for Australian workers who may be employed in that area, Chinese items are cheaper and we buy them. It never occurred to me to think, 'Where was your furniture made, because if it has been made in China and the Chinese are buying our land, you should throw your furniture out,' let alone caring where the kids' school backpacks were made.

So Mr Daniel Meers is doing the bidding of the Libs over there, or whoever put him up to write this nonsense. Goodness me; the hats are made in China! Well, check your jocks and socks.

Senator Canavan interjecting—

If they have an Australian flag on them, mate, I will be the first one up here making an apology! In fact, don't check them. Check your tyre—leave it at that!

That brings me back to this legislation and the greenfields agreement. , Madam Acting Deputy President Lines, you and I come from the great state of Western Australia, where we went through this massive mining boom. We hear some commentators over the other side, who have no idea, saying, 'The boom's over.' Let me tell you: the boom is not over. Production in mining is going through the roof. They are not getting the dollars for the iron ore that they were before and they are not getting the dollars for the coal that they were before, but production is booming. Sadly, construction is dead. Construction is just about finished in WA, as you know, Madam Acting Deputy President. You and I had the privilege of going up there and seeing what was going on Barrow Island with Gorgon and Wheatstone. In a couple of years time, it will be kaput, finished—that's it. There are no other massive projects on the horizon.

I go back to the fibs being told about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. While those opposite are trying to break down organised labour, where unions have the ability to negotiate for and on behalf of workers who want to use their services—they are not forced into it; they want to use their services—they are killing off Australian jobs at the same time.

This is a copy of the text of the China free trade agreement and the memorandum of understanding. Senator Cash, Mr Robb and others on that side are saying one thing, and some luminaries who used to be members of the Labor Party in this joint—yeah, big deal!—who are doing the bidding of their clients and do not care about Australian jobs. If they are happy to go out there and take the Liberal-National side, that is fine. But I want to go to article 10 of the China free trade agreement, where 10.4, is entitled 'grant of temporary entry'. In Australia under the previous, Labor government we had things called EMAs, enterprise migration agreements, so that, if we had these massive mining projects, we had to try and find Australia workers first, and if that was not possible we would go for 457 visas and bring foreigners in from overseas who had skills. It was not a problem. No-one on this side has a problem with that. If you cannot find Aussies, to get the job done, import the skills. But what we should be doing is investing in the next generation so our kids have the skills. Don't worry about profits, don't worry about returns to shareholders, although that is important. Take this tiny little bit and invest it in the next generation so our kids and our grandkids have the opportunity to get the skills that we do not have, so when these projects come up Aussies can be employed. Great.

To those out there listening, I take you to 10.4(3) in the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It says:

In respect of the specific commitments on temporary entry in this Chapter, unless otherwise specified in Annex 10-A, neither Party shall—

and, going to part (b)—

(b) require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effect as a condition for temporary entry.

I go to the memorandum of understanding, but I will not bore everyone with it too much—although it is not boring; it is damn interesting—because time is against me. Under the previous government, when we sorted out EMAs, you could only apply for jobs on projects, which we know are mining projects, that had a value of over $2 billion. I remember my good friend Senator Cameron I going absolutely off the reservation when we found out that someone was trying to apply that to Roy Hill. Now, you may not know Roy Hill; that is a big project in Western Australia. The one with the pearl necklace—what's her name?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gina Rinehart.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gina Rinehart, Mrs Rinehart. Thank you. How could I forget Mrs Rinehart! Mrs Rinehart wanted to bring in 1,500 foreign workers. Senator Cameron I went absolutely berserk and, at the end of the day—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

1,700.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seventeen hundred, was it? Thank you very much. But they did not need them. Guess what? Australians were available. But I tell you what the scary part is, people listening out there. The scary part of the new China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is written here for all to see, so rather than reading it I will summarise it for you. While that lot are saying that we and the CFMEU are misleading and xenophobic, which is bulldust, they have done away with that minimum project value. That mob over there—there are only two of them there at the moment. The rest of them must be hiding, because if I was wrong they would be kicking that door down, coming in here and pulling me up on that. Not one of them has come crashing through that door yet.

It says: 'Any project to the value of'—ready? not $2 billion—'$150 million'. If the Chinese—yes, it is the Chinese, because it is the Chinese-Australia Free Trade Agreement—have 15 per cent ownership in that project, they can bring in their own workers. I say to those opposite: come and prove me wrong. You are all out there. You have all got TVs in your offices. In fact, you have got three TVs in your offices. Kick the door down and have a crack at me. This is what makes me so mad, because, you see, it is tied up with other nonsense in this Fair Work Amendment Bill where it goes to a greenfields clause. A greenfields is a brand new project. A brownfields is an existing project. If another mine or gas plant starting up north—and I will talk about the north of our state of WA, Madam Acting Deputy President Lines, but it could be anywhere in Australia—and that mine has 15 per cent Chinese ownership—and we have a massive one in WA called Sino, at Cape Preston; we know that one—and it is valued at $150 million or more, they can flood it with Chinese workers. If we do not have Australian workers available, fine, but they do not even have to labour market test. They do not have to go and get Australian workers. I am not making this up; it is in their damned agreement. And the sad part is that we have the likes of the Daily Telegraphof the Murdoch press who cannot wait to grab the arguments of Mr Robb and Senator Cash.

I am still waiting for Senator Cash to come screaming through the door. She is not here yet. She has three minutes in which to hurry up. Mark my words: she will be carrying on in question time. The poor devils who have to listen to this argument all the time do not hear question time. Well, they all stand up like little robots. They get their dorothy dixers. What we call a dorothy dixer is: 'Sorry, mate, I don't want to do this to you, but you've got to ask this minister this really stupid question and the minister has a prepared speech.' You watch it today. They will say: 'Tell us the benefits of the Chinese-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Tell us about all the jobs that it is going to create. And tell us what the impediments to it are.' They will all act like kiddies—'Oh, that lot over there.' Well, you know what, as long as I am in this building and standing here, I will proudly fight any government who wants to do away with Australian jobs.

Now, I haven't even started on the shipping industry. What you do not know out there is that this mob is again trying to put a bill through this parliament that does away with Australian vessels and Australian crews on our ships. We are an island nation with the fifth-largest shipping task in the world, and what they want to do is deflag Australian vessels. They want to run up a foreign flag on the back of these vessels and put foreign crews on them. You have all heard the arguments going on with Mr Bill Milby, who heads up North Star Cruises in Western Australia. In Broome alone, 17 companies run little charters from Broome all the way to Darwin. They are all Australian flagged vessels, with all-Australian crews. Mr Milby asked the responsible department: 'How do I compete if you're going to let foreign ships in, if you're going to let foreign crews on foreign wages come in and compete with us?' This was a simple question for Mr Truss, who is the minister, and his departmental officials. We got the answer to it last Monday night during an inquiry that was held in this building. They said to him: 'Deflag your ship. Take the Australian flag off it and go over and get a flag of convenience. Just go overseas'—I don't know; Panama or wherever they get them from—'and put that flag on. Get rid of your Australian crew and employ a foreign crew.'

This is just one bill. Most people sitting here would be thinking, 'Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014—what could be harmful about that?' I just hope that in these 20 minutes I have been able to paint the picture for you of the series of mistruths that are told by this lot over there. They can change their Prime Minister every year but the same story will come out. Do you know what? This is the question that should be asked: if any member of this proud parliament who pertains to represent Australian people thinks it is a great thing to do away with Australian jobs, well, maybe I am on the wrong planet. Maybe I have got it all wrong. And how dare I worry about my kids, my neighbour's kids, the next generation of kids and every other Australian! I tell you what: I can sleep at night, because I will always defend Australian jobs. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The more things change at times in Australian politics, the more things stay the same. We may have seen this week a change in the leader of the Liberal Party and consequently a change in our Prime Minister, but we have seen no change in the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014. We have seen no change in the strategy of the government to relentlessly attack Australian workers, to relentlessly attack their conditions and to relentlessly attack the capacity of some of our lowest paid workers—those who struggle the most to be able to put food on the table for their families and to aspire to a better life.

This is a bill that was first put forward by a government and then Prime Minister who were on a crusade to slowly but surely strip away the rights of Australian workers. We are now under the new leadership of a government and we can see that nothing has changed. In this bill, we see a government—old or new; it does not seem to make much difference—that is continuing to put the profits of big business ahead of the rights of vulnerable Australian workers. This legislation is about changing minimum standards. It is not about giving people more flexibility. That is the spin we are hearing in relation to this legislation. Rather, it is actually about giving bad employers—not all employers in Australia are bad, but there are some who are in fact very bad employers—the capacity to have more power over vulnerable people. When one looks at the provisions in this bill, one can see that the government has basically gone back to the previous Fair Work review and cherry-picked the things that work to implement on one side of the ledger only. The problem is, of course, that there is nothing here to balance it up on the other side—the side that protects workers in this country.

In this bill we again see the obsession of the government—and again I make the point that it does not seem to matter whether it is the Abbott government or the Turnbull government here—about employees having access to their union representatives at reasonable times, and that, of course, remains something that we should fight to enshrine. In many workplaces often the only way workers can find out about what their entitlements are is by asking their union representative who can come in and tell them, 'No, actually there are laws to protect you, and you are entitled to be paid properly as a member of the Australian community and as a member of the Australian workforce.' Yet what we see here in this legislation is a winding back of the provisions that would allow someone to come in and give that explanation.

We know that what some unscrupulous employers do at the moment, and certainly have done from time to time in the past, is to say this to their workers, 'Sure, you're low paid worker; you can find out what your minimum legal rights. But I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll put the union representative, when they come during your lunch break, in the room next to my office and I'll just sit there with a clipboard making a note of every worker who comes in to get advice from the rep about what their minimum conditions are.' And we all know what could happen to those workers whose names are taken down for nothing more than seeking advice from the union rep. Currently the law says you cannot do that. The charge before us all as legislators is to strike a balance between not disrupting the workplace and allowing people to find out what their minimum entitlements are, and that balance is lost under this legislation.

When you think about this from the perspective of a vulnerable worker who may not, for example, have English as their first language, how are they going to find out about their rights? And the answer, of course, is that either they will not find out about their rights or it will be prohibitively difficult for them to find out about their rights. That will be the practicality of this legislation, and I and the Greens have no doubt that that is exactly what this legislation is designed to do.

I note that there have been a number of amendments to this bill, and most notably I note the amendments proposed by members of the crossbench. It is important that the crossbenchers who have proposed these amendments and this chamber more broadly are aware of what these amendments do, and we believe that essentially they make a bad bill just a little bit less bad. Yes, the amendments will remove part 2 of the bill which says that if you have happened to accrue annual leave loading and other reasonable measures during your time at work and it turns out that you get sacked before you have had the chance to take them, do not expect to get your full entitlement paid out; you are only going to get part of your entitlement paid out. And yes, it also takes out part 3 which would remove the right of employees to take or accrue annual leave while they are receiving workers compensation.

While the Greens welcome the removal of these provisions, we still cannot support this bill, because essentially they make a very bad bill just a little bit less bad. The deal the crossbench has done will take out some of the nastiest provisions that the original bill contained, yet still it does not go far enough to protect the rights of vulnerable Australian workers. What the crossbench deal has not removed from this nasty piece of legislation are the provisions that would take away employees' rights to industrial action. This will tip the scales in favour of the employer during negotiations.

Imagine going to your employer with a legitimate request for better pay and conditions and the employer being unwilling to even have a conversation with you about it and you as the employee having no legally protected course of action to make the employer come to the bargaining table. Under this bill an employer gets to be the sole decision maker on what legislation and minimum standards apply in their workplace. It removes the negotiation element of bargaining and allows an employer to sit there, fold their arms and say, 'I refuse to engage in discussions with you about an enterprise agreement.'

It is deeply concerning to the Greens, and ought to be deeply concerning to all members, that this bill will also take away an employee's only power in this situation, which is to take industrial action. Under existing laws, if employers refuses to negotiate with their employees, then the employees are able to commence stop-work meetings or go on strike. What are employees supposed to do when under this bill these options—their only two options: stop-work meetings or going on strike—are taken away from them? What are employees supposed to do? It is a question for us all.

The Greens have also moved amendments to this bill that will actually, genuinely make work fairer. Our amendments would give workers more job security. They would allow workers to have the flexibility that works for them so that they can have the time off work to pick up the kids, drop the kids off at school or look after a sick parent or grandparent, for example. The average full-time working week in Australia is 44 hours, the longest in the western world. Australian workers perform around $72 billion worth of unpaid overtime every year. Just over half of all Australians want to change their hours of work, even if it might impact on their income. What they are effectively saying to us is, 'Give us more genuine flexibility.' Flexibility means that mothers, fathers, family members and community members have opportunities to spend more time with their families, to play sport and to volunteer and build capacity in our communities. That is what the over half of Australians who want to change their hours of work even if it might impact on their income are saying to us as legislators. On average, full-time employees would like to work about 5.6 hours less per week. You can see there a genuine desire to work less, even if it impacts on income, so that people can spend more time doing the things that really matter in life.

Research shows that working hours are impacting on wellbeing. We are seeing poorer health outcomes and greater use of prescription medications. They are also affecting personal and family lives. For example, around 60 per cent of women feel consistently time pressured and nearly half of men feel that way as well.

In this country we need to better match the hours people want to work with the hours they actually work. If people want to work different, more flexible hours or work from home so that their life is better, then the law should allow that, provided it does not unduly impact on their employer. In fact, allowing workers more flexible hours will in many circumstances result in a productivity bonus not only for their employer but also for the economy. Business will benefit from that reform. Good employers are already promoting a more healthy work-life balance. Satisfied employees are likely to remain in a workplace longer and they are likely to be healthier and more productive.

We in this parliament need to be working to improve and protect the rights of Australian workers, not passing legislation that will bit by bit see their rights stripped away from them, their working conditions worsen and the fundamental protections given to them by current laws taken away. The Senate has twice rejected pieces of legislation that formed a major part of the current government's attack on people's rights at work. I hope and trust that the Senate will reject this piece of legislation too. However, right now we are concerned that some of the crossbench senators may be doing a deal with the coalition to get this legislation through. It may not pass in its current form, but it looks as if some of the worst parts of this legislation could still remain subsequent to any deals that are being done and could be passed if crossbench senators do a deal and join with the government to vote it through.

One of the Greens' main concerns with this bill is what it seeks to do to greenfields agreements. I commend the contribution of my colleague Senator Rhiannon earlier today, where she focussed very strongly on this issue. It is important that crossbench senators are aware of what this legislation would do. If it were to pass, the changes would deny workers on big projects any voice at all on their wages and conditions. These are workers on new big projects like new mines, ports and LNG processing plants. It would mean that employers are effectively able to bargain with themselves and unilaterally determine the wages and conditions that workers on their projects would receive without having to negotiate with workers or their representatives, including their union representatives.

In fact it goes far beyond this. It even allows the employers to choose which union they want to be their negotiating partner. Usually it is the workers who get to choose which union is involved in negotiations, but this legislation goes against that principle and allows the employers to choose. Not only would employers get to pick wages and conditions for workers; they would also get to pick their negotiating partner—who they will face off with at the negotiating table. This goes far, far beyond the recommendations of the Productivity Commission's draft report into workplace relations. That draft report recommends the Fair Work Act be amended so that:

… if an employer and union have not reached a negotiated outcome for a greenfields agreement after three months, the employer may …

But this piece of legislation will not even allow this. Instead of employers and unions negotiating a decent agreement on wages and conditions that works for both parties, this legislation would see employers able to just wait it out for three months, or for six months if one of the crossbench amendments passes. They would then be able to ask the Fair Work Commission to accept whatever they have put on the table, giving employees and unions absolutely no say at all.

The Greens believe that workers are entitled to share in the resources boom. But this legislation is really about letting employers and companies earn even more profit from their projects. We have not heard many reports of projects not getting off the ground because of difficulties negotiating under the current legislation. So this is not even an attempt to get more projects up; it is an attempt to let employers claw from employees an even greater share of the profits coming from agreements by shutting workers and unions out from negotiating their wages and conditions.

The Greens cannot support this bill as it currently stands; nor can we allow it to pass with only the amendments supported by the crossbench. As I said earlier in my speech, they make a very bad bill a little bit less bad. The amendments put forward by the Greens would significantly change this bill—in fact, they would radically change it: they would ensure that workers are truly given the flexibility and working conditions that they deserve.

As I previously said to this chamber, Australian workers want more genuine flexibility in their workplace. They want that so that they can spend more of their time doing things that really matter in life: playing with their kids; playing sport; working to volunteer in their communities; building stronger and more cohesive communities so that they can have a better place to live and so that their kids and their grandkids can have a better place to live. But that is genuine flexibility that is required here. I commend the work done by my colleague the member from Melbourne, Mr Bandt, in the other place, where he has been a strong and tireless advocate for a better work-life balance and more genuine workplace flexibility, so that we can all, as Australians, do more of the things that really matter in life.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a very important piece of legislation before the chamber this afternoon, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014. I was in the chair when I heard Senator Leyonhjelm making his contribution to this debate, and I want to puncture the myths that seem to surround this all of the time—that the people who are going to be affected by this are kids who are going to earn a little bit of pocket money; that really it is good for them to work on Saturdays and Sundays; that they do not really need it; that they will be able to manage the money; that it is fine; that it does not matter if they are not getting paid for working unsociable hours. That is so far from the reality of so many working Australians.

It is certainly very far from the reality that was reported to the Fair Work Taskforce in Gosford last Friday. I was pleased to be joined there by my colleagues Lisa Chesters, who chairs that taskforce, Senator Chris Ketter, my colleague here in the Senate, and Sharon Claydon, the member for Newcastle, when we took evidence from a range of members of the community. There was Youth Connections, a local group that looks after young people. These young people have a passion, which they articulated so clearly on the day: they want to get to work. They are trying to negotiate the gap between where they are and where they want to be and getting a job. And the sorts of jobs that they will be able to get on the Central Coast will be jobs in retail, hospitality and tourism—the exact sectors that this bill attempts to attack. We heard from them about their aspirations for work. We heard from nurses and midwives about the impact of the loss of penalty rates on the capacity of that profession to even draw people to it.

This is the thin edge of a wedge that we are seeing put before this Senate today. I urge all senators to reject it, in the interests of the nation, and in the interests of fairness, which is what Labor stands up for every single day of the year that we are here in this place.

We heard from Luke Hutchinson representing the USU who said very simply that when you take away penalty rates what you do is: you cut people's take-home pay. You cut their pay. And, if they live in a regional economy, like many Australians do, up and down the coast of this great country, when you take that money out of those pay packets, you take it out of the economy, and it will have a contractionary effect.

The people who are speaking for this bill today swear black and blue that it will create jobs left, right and centre. But they are not going to be held to account on it, and they are saying this simply as a matter of opinion, because the facts do not match that assertion.

The task force's last witness of the day was a business owner who is an ethical employer. And this is what she actually said: 'I would like, as a business owner, when I am making my plan, to take all the emotion out of it. It seems just like the right thing to do. I believe in dealing in facts, not opinion.' And the facts are, for her small business—a retail business in a regional part of Australia—that her penalty rates on a Sunday are less than two per cent of her turnover. She said that she is happy to pay for great staff to come in on a Sunday, to give up time with their families, to make her business successful and sustainable. That is what a good employer will do. They will understand.

We have people who are working in these shops who are mothers. We heard from Liz, a local person who is a single mother. Rent stress is a reality. When you take wages away from working mothers who are on limited hours in the retail, hospitality and tourism sectors, the chance of them actually having enough money to pay their rent is a big problem. When you take away their penalty rates, you take away from their take-home pay—you cut their take-home pay. And you make them vulnerable. We heard about what happens when women on the coast—and it is predominantly women—lose their jobs or lose their wages. They find themselves caught up in homelessness. We heard stories about women who need more hours of work, who are so at risk in the fields of hospitality, tourism and other service industries that they will end up having to sleep in their cars. That is what we heard: evidence of a local woman, who has children, sleeping in her unregistered car near her children's school. That woman, and other women like her, need a job that has decent pay. They are vulnerable. They are working limited hours. And they need this parliament, this Senate, to have people who will stand up for them against the interests of businesses that are unethical—businesses that are only there to secure a profit for themselves and to increase the profit for themselves on the back of the exploitation of very insecure workers.

I want to speak to the reality that we face today with this piece of legislation: that we either make a choice for the great Australian tradition of supporting those who believe in fairness and making sure that those who work unsociable hours get fair recompense for the inconvenience to them and their families, or—

Debate interrupted.